Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union |
| Date | 2016-09-25 23:17 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ns9esu$mit$2@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <ns08ge$o5v$1@dont-email.me> <kfn4m58eymd.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
On 22/09/2016 17:35, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Something crucial has been left out, specifically the definitions > of the wrapper functions that call access(). Based on the above > outline it looks like read() and write() simply make (or would > make) a local union object, and then call access() with the > address of that object. But if that is true there is no point to > incrementing buf->in (or buf->out) since the value is then just > thrown away. (And the void* types for 'buf' in the original > prototypes do nothing to unmuddy the water.) Can you please > supply all the relevant details? Generally my answers are > better if I don't have to shoot in the dark. Hello Tim, You're right that my example sounds fishy. I mixed two examples into one, and the result is just confusing. I'll post about the more interesting example tomorrow. Regards.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Generic read/write function - casting vs union Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-22 11:33 +0200
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-22 11:07 +0100
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-22 12:36 +0200
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-22 14:07 +0100
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-22 11:48 -0700
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-09-23 19:42 +0000
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-22 13:11 +0100
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-22 14:46 +0200
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-22 15:10 +0200
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-22 15:36 +0200
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-22 19:28 -0700
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-23 09:59 +0200
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-09-22 20:11 -0700
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-09-23 11:13 -0400
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-22 08:35 -0700
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-25 23:17 +0200
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-09-26 14:54 +0200
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union boon <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2016-09-26 19:47 +0200
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-26 19:23 +0100
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-27 13:10 -0700
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2016-10-16 18:08 -0400
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 23:40 +0300
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-11 15:20 +0100
Re: Generic read/write function - casting vs union supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-11 09:38 -0800
csiph-web